Thank you, John Lane for your patience and for continuing to rebut RJS. It may seem like going around the mulberry bush for many but for those of us who are new to the SV thesis it is very helpful. This website is an important resource for those learning about the issues. Thank you!

Additionally, while it is true that "going around in circles" may not accomplish anything, at the same time I think that sometimes if you're going around in circles with someone enough they might just hit their head on a wall and get jarred out of their rut. I know this has happened with me on several issues, so if one has the time (because it really is exhausting and time consuming) and is armed with the truth, I wouldn't go as far to say that such an exchange is altogether fruitless for the opponent either.

Maybe if RJS is embarrassed enough he'll start thinking about things a bit more clearly.

Thu May 08, 2014 4:11 am

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

RJS

Unfortunately, just claiming you won the debate by no means affirms you actually did. As a matter of fact, when one truly wins a debate he doesn't have to say it; people know it from his arguments.

Quote:

RJS: Since I accept what these Church approved theologians teach...

Now you claim to accept what the Church's approved theologians have taught yet you reject the infallibility of canonizations which was taught by the Church's approved theologians and more importantly by the doctors of the Church. Are you saying, as a layman in the pew, you accept the teaching of the Church's theologians if and only when they or a fragment from their writings seems to support your position

You still have successfully ignored the unsolvable paradox St. Robert Bellarmine presents on how could it be possible to separate from and avoid our head, the vicar of Christ.

Quote:

RJSBut, for the sake of argument, assuming that canonizations are infallible, in my mind there are several potential solutions for the difficulty. Firstly, Francis might not be the true Pope. I consider it within the realm of possibility that Ratzinger's resignation was invalid, as some are claiming today, which would mean that Ratzinger is still the Pope. If this is the case, the two canonizations were performed by an anti-Pope, which would mean they would not be protected by infallibility. I can't prove that Ratzinger is still the Pope, and I can't even say I think it is the case, but who knows, it might be the reality. And if it is the reality, I have no doubt that the Church will sort it out in the future and render the “canonizations” null. That is one possible solution for the difficulty.

Another possibility is that a future Pope will declare that the post-Concilar popes deviated from the Faith before or after their election, and, citing the authority of Cum ex Apostolatus officio, render the acts of their "Pontificates" null and void. Since I personally think these popes have deviated from the Faith, I hold this out as a possibility. If this did happen, the so-called canonizations would be rendered null....

In actuality you draw the same conclusion St. Robert Bellarmine does in theory which is Francis cannot be the true Roman Pontiff. How the Church would proceed to make an authoritative judgment is irrelevant as, demonstrated above, you have already made this private judgment based on these false canonizations.

Quote:

James Schroepfer:...If you publicly declare him a saint you are denying your private judgment and lying against what you are morally certain to be true which would be scandalous. If you are publicly denying JP II is a saint without claiming Francis is not the pope, you are denying the infallibility of canonizations. If you claim to just doubt this canonization, unless you can demonstrate with moral certainty the canonization decree is somehow defective (a positive doubt), you are still doubting the infallibility of canonizations, a doctrine of the Church. The only way one can positively state JP II is not a saint without sinning or denying Catholic doctrine is to say the canonization was not infallible because it was not promulgated by a true pope. Otherwise you are demonstrating by your public judgment that Francis is the pope (JP II is a saint), or you are making a public judgment against the teaching of Holy Mother the Church [on the infallibility of canonizations] (JP II is not a saint). It is by the exterior, our actions or words, our interior beliefs are demonstrated to others. People cannot read our hearts or know our minds.

People understand our minds from our words and actions. So which of these actions are you actually doing? I don't need the theoretical as far as what the Church will do on the future based on your opinion (the hypothetical), but I request to know what you are doing here, now, today. How are you avoiding this paradox of St. Robert Bellarmine? Are you praying to "saint" John Paul II or not?

And if you are going to argue that canonizations are not infallible, respond first to whether we are to follow the 1983 Code of Caonon Law? For Canon Law is infallible in faith and morals and if your objection does not pertain to faith or morals, what gives you the authority to disobey or disregard it?

Thu May 08, 2014 4:15 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Mithrandylan wrote:

ClemensMaria wrote:

Thank you, John Lane for your patience and for continuing to rebut RJS. It may seem like going around the mulberry bush for many but for those of us who are new to the SV thesis it is very helpful. This website is an important resource for those learning about the issues. Thank you!

Additionally, while it is true that "going around in circles" may not accomplish anything, at the same time I think that sometimes if you're going around in circles with someone enough they might just hit their head on a wall and get jarred out of their rut.

Thank you to both of you. And thanks to James for his thoughtful and clear posts!

The issue I think on reflection in this case is the lack of a clearly expressed thesis on RJS's part. RJS, if I can assist you with addressing this at all, I think it is in demanding that you answer the questions that I have asked which relate to the specific charges you are making. This is not debate tactics on my part, it's aimed at getting the issues clarified. I really ought to have done it in the first post, but didn't see the ambiguity clearly myself. I felt it, and tried to grapple with it, but it wasn't clear in my own mind. It is now.

You need to state a clear proposition that is your essential point. Something like, "The sedevacantist thesis is flawed in that it asserts that it is lawful for a layman to conclude that a claimant is not really the pope. This is false because there is a law (divine, human?) which prohibits the laity from forming such judgements. The proof is as follows..."

Or, "The sedevacantist thesis is flawed in that it asserts that it is possible for a layman to conclude with certitude that a claimant is not really the pope. This is false because the members of the hierarchy are the only competent judges of this type of question. This is proved by..."

Both of these propositions are unprovable, in my opinion, but at least they are clear. What you have asserted remains ambiguous and so far you have not clarified your view. I think this is evidence that you are confused, but it's certainly possible that you are both right and at the same time confused in how to express your position. Unfortunately such a combination will not aid you in convincing others. It won't even aid you in achieving certitude yourself.

Also, you need to escape from this trap of finding a text which appears to aid your cause but which you have not understood in its context. An excellent example is your use of Suarez in a recent post. Suarez is a partisan of the "pope-heretic must be deposed" thesis. Obviously he will therefore discuss who has the competence to depose a pope-heretic. Indeed, he is obliged to do so. This is of absolutely no probative value in defending the notion that even according to Bellarmine's thesis (the pope-heretic is ipso facto deposed but the possibility of a merely declaratory, subsequent, judgement is not to be rejected out of hand) the hierarchy must judge the heresy or the loss of office of the culprit. The assertions of Suarez simply are not relevant in such a context. This is obvious the moment that the situation is understood. I do hope it is obvious to you now, but if it isn't, re-think the whole thing. The same general point is true of Smith and Craisson. They cannot be deployed as proof that unless and until some kind of authoritative judgement is issued, nobody (or no layman) can form the judgement that a pope-heretic is not truly pope. The reason is obvious enough to me, and no doubt to others, but it seems nevertheless to escape you. It is that these authors do not say why such a judgement is to be issued, or what happens if it isn't issued. So you cannot be sure whether they mean that such a preliminary (lay) judgement would be sinful, or impossible of certitude, or both, or whether they are merely pointing out that it would be necessary for practical reasons for such a judgement to be issued (i.e. it would ensure certitude for all of those who otherwise would not achieve it, thereby forestalling schisms, doubts about the replacement pope, etc.). One simply cannot tell from the very brief snippets that these writers present.

The other thing I would like to emphasise is that we all recognise that the crisis which Vatican II has caused is an incredibly knotty problem, so we do not (I speak for myself and a very large number of friends and contacts) think that we have answered every problem or resolved every mystery. Nor do we think (foolish thought!) that our judgements bind anybody else. My own conviction actually arises for ecclesiological reasons and I think that Paul VI created a schism - with himself on the wrong side - when he promulgated the erroneous texts of Vatican II and reinforced it irredeemably by the promulgation of the New Missal. The heretic-pope thesis isn't actually the source of my certitude, but rather is the most incredibly useful theological field in which to explore the relevant issues (especially those we have been grappling with here). I will leave you with the words of Cardinal John de Torquemada, the Spanish theologian and relative of the Inquisitor.

Da Silveria wrote:

To demonstrate that a “Pope can separate himself illegitimately from the unity of the Church and from obedience to the head of the Church, and therefore fall into schism, Cardinal Torquemada uses three arguments:

“1 – (...) by disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church and in relation to whom the unity of the Church is primarily constituted. He can do this by disobeying the law of Christ or by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law. In this way he would separate himself from the body of the Church, while it is subject to Christ by obedience. Thus, the Pope would be able without doubt to fall into schism.

2. The Pope can separate himself without any reasonable cause, just for pure self will, from the body of the Church and the college of priests. He will do this if he does not observe that which the Church Universal observes on the basis of the Tradition of the Apostles according to the chapter Ecclesiasticarum, dil. 11, or if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the universal Councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See above all in relation to Divine Worship. For example, not wishing to observe personally something from the universal customs of the Church, or the universal rite of the ecclesiastical cult. This would take place in case he did not wish to celebrate with the sacred vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he did not wish to make “The Sign of the Cross” like the other priests make it, or other similar things which have been decreed in a general way for perpetual utility, according to the canons Quae ad perpetuam, Violatores, Sunt quidam and Contra statuta (25, q. 1). Departing in such a way, and with pertinacity, from the universal observance of the Church, the Pope would be able to fall into schism.

That's a pretty much word-perfect description of what Paul VI did in the mid-60s. He separated himself from those who remained attached to tradition, and he displayed manifest pertinacity by persecuting them when they failed to join him in his revolt from tradition.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu May 08, 2014 11:54 am

AMWills

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 amPosts: 138

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Katie wrote:

.Okay, I can't resist a humorous interlude...

Question: What do RJS and Francis Bergoglio have in common?

Answer: They have both falsely canonised two people.

Katie, that deserves an award!

Thu May 08, 2014 12:17 pm

Katie

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 amPosts: 194

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Wills, good to hear from you! I thought you, of all people, would appreciate the wit. That was my annual inspiration so that will be it from me til 2015 probably.

Back to the subject at hand...

_________________On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine

Thu May 08, 2014 2:28 pm

Mario Looch

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pmPosts: 95

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

TKGS wrote:

Maria Looch wrote:

Hello,

I'm Maria Looch and am new to this site. Can someone please explain to me who Robert Siscoe is and give me his credentials? Is he reputable and scholarly?

Thank you very much,Maria

Robert Siscoe is an attorney, if I am not mistaken. He writes as a columnist for The Remnant newspaper though I don't know how regularly. He is a layman and I've never seen that he claims to have any credentials in theology or canon law. You should read through his article that begins this topic as well as Mr. Lane's reply. He seems to be a rabid anti-sedevacantist.

Is he reputable or scholarly? I've not been impressed with anything he's written that I have read (which probably amounts to two or three articles), but I think you should probably develop your own opinion after reading through this topic.

Thank you very much. After reading I would have to agree with your assessment of him. In fact I am not sure how one could conclude otherwise.

Thu May 08, 2014 6:35 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Maria Looch wrote:

Thank you very much. After reading I would have to agree with your assessment of him. In fact I am not sure how one could conclude otherwise.

Actually, it's quite easy to conclude otherwise, especially if you've already decided what is right and will not look at any evidence to the contrary or, when you do, misconstrue everything you read. I was not a sedevacantist when I joined this forum. This forum did not bring me to the sedevacantist position. What this forum (and the rest of the website) did was to give me more background and understanding of, what was then, "their" position on the pope question.

Then, one day I witnessed the Archdiocesan Interfaith Thanksgiving Service (think of it as a mini-Assisi). That is when I understood that the people sponsoring these events (i.e., the archbishop, the pope, etc.) were not Catholic--there was no way they could be Catholic. I think that, had I not understood the sedevacantist thesis more than just a superficial knowledge that I had, I would have abandoned all religion, for if what I witnessed was an authentic prayer service to the True God, then there is no god, true or otherwise. I had already concluded that the only possible True Faith is Catholicism, so if I were to rule out that one, the only religion left is no religion at all.

While I do understand how many people can not be sedevacantists, I do not understand how one can study the issue carefully and still not be sedevacantist. I really don't. And it really doesn't take that much study before one is confronted with the inconsistencies one must hold in order to reject the sedevacantist thesis.

[T]he proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called "ipso facto" have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect, [is] false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri May 16, 2014 3:03 pm

Michael Wilson

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 amPosts: 63Location: St. Marys, Kansas

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Thank all of you for this thread. I also found it very interesting and informative. My prayers for all.

_________________"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum